Channel 4 FactCheck goes behind the spin to dig out the truth and separate political fact from fiction.

Speculation about a deal with the Conservatives has propelled the UK Independence Party (Ukip) into the headlines as delegates meet for their annual conference.

YouGov polls put support for the party, which wants Britain to pull out of the European Union, at around 7 per cent this week.

But Ukip’s popularity with voters has nudged 10 per cent this year, making the party more popular than the Liberal Democrats at times.

That kind of support has led to talk of a possible pact with the Tories, where leader Nigel Farage’s party would agree not to contest seats in exchange for the promise of an EU referendum “written in blood”.

In the absence of any concrete deal, the party insists it is still a serious electoral force, and Mr Farage took to the airwaves today to sketch out Ukip policy on crime, education, tax and other non-Europe matters.

Clearly it’s a matter of opinion as to whether the UK would be better off in or out of the EU, but we have two factual issues with Ukip’s position.

“Commissioners in Brussels dictate 75 per cent of our laws.”

An oldie but goodie, this one. Mr Farage originally based this on a mistranslation of the words of the then-European Parliament President Hans Gert Poettering in 2009.

Mr Poettering did not say that the EU was behind three quarters of laws passed by member states, he said the European Parliament was behind three quarters of EU laws.

Ukip have stuck with the claim but changed the justification. They now say the 75 per cent figure is inspired by a German study in 2005, which said 84 per cent of legislation in Germany came from EU regulations and directives.

A party spokesman said Ukip believes the figure would be a bit lower in the UK as laws relating to the single currency don’t apply here, giving a ballpark figure of around 75 per cent.

Apart from the obvious vagueness of this, it would silly to pay too much attention to that German study, as it makes no allowance for the relative importance of different laws passed.

An EU regulation on the bendiness of cucumbers has less impact on our daily lives than the Health and Social Care Bill, but in comparisons like this they each count as one law.

Do you count every one of the vast number of trivial, technical, EU regulations passed each year when you do the calculations? You could argue that many of them are not technically “laws” anyway.

A much-misreported House of Commons library study into the amount of our legislation that comes from Europe said it was “possible to justify any measure between 15 per cent and 50 per cent or thereabouts” depending on how you looked at EU regulations”.

But the study concluded: “There is no totally accurate, rational or useful way of calculating the percentage of national laws based on or influenced by the EU.”

“By leaving the EU we save over £45m a day plus £60bn a year.”

Ukip are counting the supposed cost of EU membership here, but ignoring the benefits. We’ve had a look at this before, and there was no expert concensus as to a net gain or loss.

We know that there are millions of jobs dependent on trade with Europe. That’s not to say that they would automatically be lost if we pulled out of the EU, but it would also be naive to think that there would be no economic cost.

A report by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggested that there would not be the mass unemployment predicted by Europhiles, but there would be a small net loss to the economy if we left Europe.

Tax

One of Ukip’s most intriguing proposals is to to merge 20 per cent basic income tax with 11 per cent National Insurance to create a 31 per cent flat tax on all earned incomes over £11,500.

So a millionaire would pay the same percentage as a nurse, but a substantial number of people on the very lowest incomes would be lifted out of tax altogether.

Ukip also aims to abolish employers’ national insurance across the life of a parliament, which “will undoubtedly boost employment and simplify the process of employing people”.

A flat tax rate is a bold proposal. No other major Western economy has one. Many former Soviet countries do, and fans point to high GDP growth in Russia and the Baltic states as proof that flat taxes can stimulate an economy.

On the other hand, those countries might have seen growth rates rocket regardless of their tax system. And Ukraine has experienced chronically poor growth despite its flat rate.

Stuart Adam from the Institute For Fiscal Studies told us that merging income tax and national insurance would be “a big simplification and a good idea”.

But he doubted whether abolishing higher tax thresholds would simplify the system very much, or whether there would be enough of a boost to employment to make up for the loss of revenue.

He also pointed out that abolishing employers’ national insurance was “a huge deal”.

“That’s like a £50-60bn tax cut – significantly bigger than if they just abolished corporation tax. It would undoubtedly boost employment, but it would be impressive if it generated enough extra employment to make up for that kind of revenue.”

Aside from the economics, the idea will naturally spark a debate about fairness and wealth distribution.

Law and order

Ukip policy is to double the number of prison places “to enforce zero tolerance on crime”.

Again, whether that’s a good or bad idea is a matter of opinion.

But we would point out that a) the prison population of England and Wales has already almost doubled in 20 years b) such a move would cost the taxpayer more than £3bn and c) England and Wales would have the highest incarceration rate in western Europe and the ninth biggest prison population in the world.

It all sounds rather good and fair to me, however, your report above sounds more ambiguous and slightly biased, rather than UKIP being ‘found wanting under scrutiny’. Perhaps that is because they are now showing themselves as a serious threat to the existing rabble in government as well as those standing in the wings.

Heh, looks like you’re worried your little status quo is going to be upset by a party suggesting common sense ideas getting a chunk of the vote. I highly doubt anyone who would vote UKIP is going to be put off by baseless rhetoric from someone on Channel 4 of all places. That’s mostly WHY people DO vote UKIP: because they don’t believe the drivel written by the media.

I am wondering whether, where comparisons are made between rich and poor when discussing tax and social security contributions, the fact that many wealthy people prefer to pay for things like education and health is factored into the equation. Does this make a significant difference which should favour treatment of the wealthy? This is not an opinion – just saying (as they say!)
Heather

No I don’t think so at all. For the same reason, extremely wealthy people cannot opt out of paying social security, even if they ar so well off they would never need it again. So many of the principles of taxation have been lost with the marginalisation of socialism and social democracy. The point of wealth redistribution is to rebalance the deficiencies of the market which doesn’t reward people adequately for the work they do in some cases, and exaggerates it in others.

Having seen many changes instituted in places like Portugal, Spain and France before they eventually came to the UK, I think you are missing the possibility of ‘inevitable lawmaking’ by sovereign governments claiming them for themselves before they were forced to enact them in a slightly different form – like some implementations of human rights legislation.

The above analysis seems to be referring to laws made in the more ‘negative’ context that UKIP sees them – I remember lots of laws that Blair’s government claimed as wonderful advances for the country and a Labour success, but which I had already seen implemented in other countries under general EU legislation several years before.

Bias in interpretation is the key element here and it seems any statistics will be subject to it.

You like so many other news media types seem determined to undermine the credibility of any group outside of the main stream parties. It would be a breath of fresh air to have an alternative to the stale old political parties which through their bungling ways have brought the people of this country back once again to the misery of financial recession. Give the outsiders more credibility or risk being seen as biast in your reporting, the public are not as easily fooled as you may believe.

I take issue with your assumption that “there are many jobs that depend on European trade” . Do you seriously think that we would stop buying Mercedes or BMW cars if we left the EU? Equally, do you think that BMW or Mercedes would stop buying British components? I don’t think so. I see no reason for EU membership or a removal thereof to have any adverse impact on employment. In fact the absolute reverse. Open up Commonwealth markets and remove EU bureaucracy and our employment position will improve dramatically.

Just one major point you’ve missed out on Patrick.
Merging NIC with income tax would mean that anyone with an investment or pension income would become eligible to pay the same tax as wage-earners! Instead of a lot less. That’s not likely to go down well with UKIP supporters and its wealthy sponsors who don’t pay NIC on their non-wage earnings.
Moreover, employer’s NIC is our third tier income tax that only wage-slaves pay.[I used to be a wage-slave so I have a lot of sympathy with you, Patrick, and all others]. Moreover, if a flat 31% tax is to be substituted, does UKIP plan to abolish employers’ NIC too?

George Johnson is mistaken.
The EU simply requires its Member States to comply with the European Convention for Human Rights. Whether we simply say so, or write that Convention into British Law remains a matter for ourselves alone to decide. By incorporating it into British law, we are able to interpret it according to British traditions rather than having the traditions of the Hague Court decide those measures. Which is a degree of independence.
It would be perverse to reject the ECHR altogether since we (the UK) imposed it on European States as part of the post-war settlements. Besides, George’s British rights are protected by that Convention.

Every millionaire pays the same vat as a nurse. That is how tax works. Everyone with money is subjected to a means test to hive money to the government , but nobody should be excluded by that means test from a universal benefit.

Whilst you’re fully entitled to your view, you should be aware that most knowledgeable people would not agree with the examples you give about VAT.
Nurses – who are middle earners – spend an higher proportion of their income on VAT-able goods & services that a ‘millionaire’ would usually spend. So that raising VAT rates to provide scope for a tax cut for millionaires is one way of re-ordering taxes to favour millionaires at the expense of people such as nurses.
I’m quite certain Osborne knows that too.
Millionaires (and, who knows, I might be one of them) also pay less tax for other reasons. Investment income only warrants the attention of income tax, whereas the earned income of both nurses and consultants pays NIC as both employee’s and employer’s contributions. That usually doubles the medics’ tax bills compared with the millionaire’s investment income.
Oh, it’s a tough life being wealthy! Or so they tell me!

As normal for C4, a state funded propaganda organisation masquerading as news, just like the BBC.

The “it’s not the EU its the Eupoean Parliament” line is ludicrous.

No mention of the EU “Enteroprise” Commissioner admission that EU regulation destroys 5.5% of GDP which rather shows C4’s claim that “it is a matter of opinion” whether we would be better off out.

Perhaps C4 “News” would be better “faqctchecking” the 28 gate fraud where their harness mate, the BBC, was caught lying, for years on end, about the alleged “28 scientists” who told them it was alright for them to break their Charter duty of “balance” by lying and censoring to promote the warming fraud. A fact check@ would prove the BBC organisation to entirely corrupt and totalitarian.

Even if they didn’t “factcheck” it, at the very least if C4 “news” wasn’t corrupt they couldn’t have censored reoporting it as these totalitarian propagandists have obviously done.

To take one example C4 “factcheck” bases their claims on the alleged “fact” that “it would also be naive to think that there would be no economic cost” of quotting the EU.

That is not a statement that any remptely honest organisation could claim as an unambiguous “fact”.

The evidence is that, excluding the money we hand over, membership of the EU’s regulatory system destrpys 5.5% of GDP ((£90 bn). This has even been publicly acjnowledged by the EU’s “rnterprise” commissioner so C4 cannot honestly say that the net effect of membership is economically the opposite.

Clerarly were C4 in any slightest way honest, or anything other than a fascist propaganda organisation they will have published similarly slanted libels against the officially approved parties. Loohing at, for example, the LibDems they didn’t do a prior “factcheck” but did do this http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/have-the-lib-dems-kept-their-promises/5980 post event leaning over backwards to pretend the LDs had only minimally broken their promises and laud whay they had allegedly 2achieved in government”..

Factchecking C4 it is proven that they are corrupt, lying parasitic propagandists in…

I don’t say there would be a net loss if we left the EU, Neil. NIESR say it. On a more serious note, you’re walking a fine line between strong criticism and abuse here. If you call me a fascist again this will be your last comment that gets put up.

“Günter Verheugen, EU Commissioner for Enterprise and Industry, announced in 2006 that EU regulations were costing the European economy some €600bn a year (this was almost twice as high as previous estimates). €600bn is about 5.5% of total EU GDP”

This information, without which it is impossible for the public to make an informed estimate of the value or otherwise of membership, and which is in direct contradicition to C4’s “factchecked” claims, has obviously been censored for over 6 years by our media or you would not be ignorant of it.

And if that is not proof that C4, the BBC & most papers are corrupt lying fascist propagandist parasites I would be interested to know what you would need?

Quote: “This figure has been widely misunderstood, for three reasons: a) the estimate captures the administrative burden only (i.e. not policy costs or knock-on effects b) it describes the cost of EU regulations and domestic regulations combined (so not only EU regulation) and c)crucially, Verheugen probably never mentioned the figure in the first place. What Verheugen actually said in the interview about reducing regulation, was that “I’ve said that in my view it must be possible to get a 25 percent reduction, and that means a productivity gain of €150bn.” The Financial Times’ journalist appears to have taken this to mean that
€150bn represented 25 percent of the total cost of regulation. However, Verheugen’s office has subsequently confirmed that the €150 billion figure referred to the extra benefits that would be generated (as opposed to saved) through various dynamic effects by a 25 percent cut in the administrative burden of EU and domestic regulations combined.”

Since you have ignored my request not to post insulting, rather than critical, comments (“corrupt, lying fascist propagandist parasites”), I am no longer accepting comments from you and have blocked you.

TBH, I reckon you couldn’t fact check your way out of a paper bag. You’ve just blocked someone, for being insulting and offensive, because he included words in his post that you didn’t like. He wasn’t swearing, nor was he particularly being aggressive.

If you don’t like people thinking your views may be of a certain political persuasion, perhaps you shouldn’t be reporting on political things? Or perhaps not reporting at all? Certainly, if you don’t want to be called out as a follower of certain beliefs, you should do your utmost not to appear as part of that ‘group’.

By attempting to draw UKIP voters and potential UKIP voters, away from UKIP, by stating your very loosely stated opinion as hard fact, you’re going to do nothing but wind us up. Do you seriously think those who follow UKIP, do so without checking the facts of what’s being said, on both sides? If so, you’re a fool. More than this, you’re a fool who is intentionally spouting your opinion on a public website and then publicly banning those, who disagree with it, lol. For a so-called professional, that’s laughable behaviour! ‘I’m taking my ball home and telling my mummy! WAAAAAAH!’

Clearly you have a problem, and that problem manifests itself as trying to shoot the messenger when he brings you bad news.

It’s not C4 News’ fault that one of UKIP’s useful idiots presents ‘facts’ that are nothing of the sort, and is rude when airing his conspiracy theories and accusing ITN of being complicit.

Mr Worrall has done Neil Craig a favour, because Craig doesn’t have to come back here and apologise for posting misinformation about the cost of EU regulation that even the eurosceptic Open Forum says is rubbish.

Still, this isn’t the first time a minority political party have sought power on the basis that if you tell a lie long enough it will become the truth…

UKIP actually claim EC costs the UK £5million a week, and based on 2007 figures this is correct. That year cost UK 3.5 billion euros which is 6.7 million euros perv week at 0.85 rate that is over £5million per week.